Per the Manual of style, don't link words which have no specific use. And we don't link years. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is very clear you went on the attack against my recent contributions due to the fact that we disagree about your ideologies on Zen Filmmaking. As that discussion was obviously the source point from where you located by recent edits. What you predominately removed from my edits of yesterday, however, was proper English language punctuation that I added to the articles. I guess you do not have a very strong command of the English language. If you are going to make talk statements to me, at least tell the truth about what you did. (Filmbotboy (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Not true. You were adding bluelinks to most of those article, too many bluelinks. With this edit you change the standard way of listing character (actor) to character played by actor. With this edit you linked the year and made the final sentence too wordy. With this edit you bluelinked common terms and changed "Star" to "The lead actress of this film", no need for six words where one will do. With this edit you added wordiness and linked common terms. With this edit you added words and linked the year. With this edit you linked two years (one of which is in the future and has no bearing on the film) and added bluelinks. You labelled all of the above as "punctuation", when they are not. Punctuation is adding full stops, commas or parentheses. What you did was overlink that was why I reverted your edits. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Proper English is proper English, no matter where it is used. If you didn't like my opening links to other Wikipedia pages, you should have just removed them. (Filmbotboy (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I did remove them, and adding words does not make text easier to read, and readability is the main aim. To say X directed, wrote and produced Y is easier that saying X directed the film Y and also produced the film and was the main writer. Star Z is better than The leading actress from this film was Z. The structure Mr A (Actor Name) scans easier than Mr A played by the actor Actor Name. You mislabelled you edits because you were doing nothing to the punctuation, you were changing the grammar and ignoring the manual of style. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Obviously you are one of those people who wants to get in the last word. That is fine. If you were not following and undoing every edit I made the other day, however, then this discussion would not be taking place. What you are saying about my punctuation is not true. Take a look at my edits. They each included punctuation. You and I simply have a different way of looking at the manual of style and understating proper punctuation. My only thought to you is, instead of simply undoing an edit you have a specific problem with, why don't you correct the specific incidences and leave the rest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmbotboy (talk • contribs)

I gave you specific example where you change no punctuation, rather you linked years and other items, we don't link years and the bluelinks you added gave no context to the articles. You called your edits "punctuation" when they were not. There were edits you made that were useful, and I left them, most were not, and I reverted them. There was nothing to do with your edits other than revert them, this is not as if you added a paragraph of text and I could proofread it, you linked useless items, I delinked them. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex West. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not even know what to say to this falsehood. Is this how you people operate when a person disagrees with you and places their vote and opinion on a page that you put up for deletion? First, I get maliciously followed by one user and now this. I see why people have a problem with the Wikipedia process.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmbotboy (talk • contribs)

If you do think of something to say, you should do it at the linked SPI case. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is also of note that Alex West and Filmbotboy both sign with (~~~~). And for the "maliciously followed", I checked your edits and have explained why I reverted some of them.Darrenhusted (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per evidence presented at the above case, you have been blocked. To contest this block please place ((unblock|your reason here)) below. Tiptoety ^talk 21:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((unblock|We are two people))

It looks like the only way I can get a message to you people is via the unblock statement. I just wanted to let you know that you have made a mistake. Alexia and I work out of the same offices at Raleigh Studios, Manhattan Beach and it wasn’t until we started discussing the morning about how annoyed she was at Wikipedia for sockpuppeting her that I realized it was me who got her blocked because she didn't know I had done a few eidts. So, do your usercheck, call me a sockpuppet, a meatpuppet, block me or whatever, I really don’t care. But, before you or other users go accusing people of something you should have all of the facts. There are two of us! (Filmbotboy (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I have responded to your request at User talk:Alex West; it has been declined. Should you wish to appeal your block further, please use your main account to do so, and use ((unblock|your reason)) instead of ((tlx|unblock|your reason)). The latter will not properly post an unblock template and will not bring your request to our attention. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]